but it mentions that China has doubled windmill capacity every year since 2006, that they are now the leading manufacturer of solar cells in the world.
And one of the criticisms of the climate bill has been that if we pass it, it would put us at a disadvantage globally. But it appears that China is, in fact, moving ahead with some of the same things that are supposed to be the benefits of this climate bill here in the U.S.
And I know you probably...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... I know you probably haven't read the article and it's not fair to ask your reaction, but I...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... I did wonder if you see China as a competitor in green energy.
GRASSLEY: Well, of course they're a competitor, but no more than they are in all of manufacturing.
And I think that their publicity obviously serves a purpose of public relations for their company -- their country beyond just their advertising what they're doing, because they're the number one emitter of CO2 and they are not agreeing to meet the same goals that the United States has to meet, so they got to talk about their green energy to obfuscate on the shortcomings they have of not agreeing with an overall policy to reduce CO2 on the same basis that the United States is called upon to do it, or the world's calling upon the United States to do it, and Europe at the same time.
So consequently I don't see it as anything different than just being able to cover up some of their other shortcomings.
QUESTION: I see. Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: OK.
STAFF: Tom Rider?
Tom Steever at Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I see that Secretary Vilsack has even said that -- or acknowledged, at least, that climate change analysis models are indicating that producers may be taking a lot of land out of production into forest production in the next 40 (ph) years (inaudible) of climate change legislation.
Do you think that that marks a change of direction or a change of heart in the -- for the administration on climate change legislation? What could this mean?
GRASSLEY: OK. Well, the fact of the matter is that growing trees is one of the ways to show the rest of the world that you're developing credits that you can sell. The trouble is you can't eat trees, and the extent to which it might replace our ability to grow foodstuffs is going -- is going to be a (inaudible). And I don't think that they're, quite frankly, are going to be very successful in promoting timber, except in areas of the country where you can't grow row crops.
And from that standpoint I think it's trying to make -- it's a public policy that's trying to make agriculture look like it's coming out well under cap-and-trade when, in fact, we're going to lose income.
.gif)
